Why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages?

[marco]

If Jesus was sent on a divine mission, with "good news", then one characteristic we might suppose would be resounding clarity. We don't have that, as discussions here show.


We judge a teacher by the clarity of his explanations. "I tell you TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Is it too much to expect divine Jesus to have anticipated difficulties in these simple words? And of course there are umpteen passages that necessitate discussion that results in vastly different interpretations.

Jesus gave people a further means to argue and disagree: his "sheep" know his voice. Unfortunately, many different groups believe they are HIS sheep; individuals believe they are solitary lambs, under the guidance of the Good Shepherd.


Is it the case that all is vanity? That the whole mass of NT writing is riddled with confusion? One would have thought that if the Resurrection was so important then that, especially, would have been done unambiguously.


Why is there so much ambiguity about NT verses?

Why was Jesus - outside of his platitudes on love and neighbourliness - so unclear?

[marco]

What about loving one another is unclear?

Nothing. Did somebody say this was unclear? We are dealing with ambiguities, problems, difficulties in interpretation.

Why would you expect 'resounding clarity'?

I wouldn't if the work was the work of simple men. If it was God's message, I would think it would be a model of crystalline clarity. One great merit of the Koran is that it is written so beautifully that no mortal could imitate it..... or so they say. If Jesus had divine friends, one would think his pronouncements would be clear. As you've pointed out, some are. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

If I gave you one piece of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle and asked you to describe for me from that 1 piece, the total picture, would I be remiss in my expectation?

I would consider the request silly and refer you to the picture on the jig-saw box. Where is the comparable Bible picture?

I was led to this question after discussing the contentious - and important - message from Jesus that he would return before some of his listeners had died. That modification about people being alive leads one to suppose Jesus is saying his mission will be completely wound up in a few years. Some take it that when Jesus was on a mountain with three of his followers, he fulfilled his prophecy.

Clarity would mean Jesus saying: "I am coming back in 2543 years and seventy one days from now." Sadly, we never have such clarity, for then we could pronounce with certainty on dubious predictions.

Is it important 'when he returns'? How does that matter to anyone busy loving their neighbours?

If people are engaged in loving each other I suppose nothing much matters. Some might think a prediction about a demi-god coming to Earth with a possibly hostile legion of armed angels of more than passing interest. It has for me the same significance as the effect of the ghost of his father on Hamlet. The OP is about the lack of clarity that allows some groups to claim X and others to claim the opposite, while each group thinks itself to be a flock of sheep with extremely good hearing.


May I summarise your observations by interpreting them as meaning: All you need is love?

[Tcg]

QUESTION Why isn't the bible clearer so that everyone that reads it can come to the same understanding?



ANSWER Because God doesn't want everyone to understand it. The bible indicates that scripture was not meant to be universally understood, but rather by design, was written to be understood by a select few at God's chosen time.

Presently, there are somewhere around 2.3 billion Christians in the world. This makes it the largest religion in the world. The claim that God intended only a select few to understand Christ's message does not hold up when we accept that fact.


The reason many don't accept specific spins on Christ's message is that they are already Christians and accept their own group's spin on it. This reality can be observed in this thread. We have one Christian saying the message is clear and others saying God intended it to be a confused mess.


I agree that overall it is a confused mess. That doesn't, however, stop billions from accepting some kernel of the story they find meaningful, probably the mythological tale of life after death. If God planned for only a "select few" to accept it, his execution of that plan is a huge failure.



Tcg

[marco]

Presently, there are somewhere around 2.3 billion Christians in the world. This makes it the largest religion in the world. The claim that God intended only a select few to understand Christ's message does not hold up when we accept that fact.

All Christians are equal, Tcg, but some are more equal than others, and they are the FEW, that happy band who entered by the narrow gate; the few that were separated from the many who were called. Can you imagine the ethereal glory one glimpses if one is blessed to be a ewe or a ram in the tiny flock, a few watchful steps away from a vigilant Good Shepherd?


When I study the complexities of a chess problem; the art of composing a villanelle; the intricacies of tensor calculus; or attempt to penetrate the language of a long dead author, rendering his foreign thoughts into English - and then I read that some sheep have wandered into a nice field to eat the intellectual pasture of the bible, then I see what Pushkin meant when he cried out that life was "dar napracniye" - a useless gift, a random gift. Some folk are indeed lucky; they labour not and the Father endoweth them. Is it a wonder the world has its cynics?

If only belief could be cashed in for truth!

[For_The_Kingdom]

If Jesus was sent on a divine mission, with "good news", then one characteristic we might suppose would be resounding clarity. We don't have that, as discussions here show.


We judge a teacher by the clarity of his explanations. "I tell you TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Is it too much to expect divine Jesus to have anticipated difficulties in these simple words? And of course there are umpteen passages that necessitate discussion that results in vastly different interpretations.

Jesus gave people a further means to argue and disagree: his "sheep" know his voice. Unfortunately, many different groups believe they are HIS sheep; individuals believe they are solitary lambs, under the guidance of the Good Shepherd.


Is it the case that all is vanity? That the whole mass of NT writing is riddled with confusion? One would have thought that if the Resurrection was so important then that, especially, would have been done unambiguously.


Why is there so much ambiguity about NT verses?

Why was Jesus - outside of his platitudes on love and neighbourliness - so unclear?

I hear what you are saying, marco. But then again, the issue that you raise is nothing new or unique...this had been going on throughout Jesus' earthly ministry.

Remember, some of Jesus' teachings were hard for the disciples to keep up with. They were grumbling and debating among themselves about Jesus' words, his concepts, his meanings. And this was all taking place while Jesus was with them!!

Also, remember; during that time there were three forms of Jewish movements/thoughts..

1. Pharisees
2. Sadducees
3. Essenes

Well, that is more division there..and again, this was all while Jesus was on earth. So I guess it isn't hard to imagine the division which was later to come.

I actually like the answer that William provided. However, there still seems to be something missing. Maybe Satan has a lot to do with it.

More digging needs to be done here.

[William]

Complainant: May I summarise your observations by interpreting them as meaning: All you need is love?

Witness: Too ambiguous.
Understanding what it is to 'love thy neighbor' is clearly complicated...We are dealing with ambiguities, problems, difficulties in interpretation...
If I gave you one piece of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle and asked you to describe for me from that 1 piece, the total picture, would I be remiss in my expectation?

Complainant: I would consider the request silly and refer you to the picture on the jig-saw box.

Witness: Obviously in the analogy I gave, I do not have a picture of the jigsaw box, only 1 piece of the picture and 999 pieces missing.
Q: Do you have an actual picture of the jigsaw box to which that piece I gave to you , belongs?
Q: If not, then to where are you going to 'refer' me?

Needless to say, the request would be silly. What makes YOUR complaint any less silly?
Given what I said about it being made known to us - from the same source - that Jesus did most of his teaching out of the public arena. It is therefore part of the data contained in the piece of the puzzle you hold in your hand.


Complainant: If people are engaged in loving each other I suppose nothing much matters.

Witness: Whereas I would suppose that if people are engaged in loving each other then nothing else matters.
In other words, love matters much.
Why would you expect 'resounding clarity'?


Complainant: I wouldn't if the work was the work of simple men.

Witness: Is it not true of the data that the GOD can confound those wise in their own estimate? Could it not hold true then that a simple message is for the simple man, and a more in-depth message to the less simple was given behind closed doors, as we are informed?
Given the topic Jesus was focused upon in his teaching, keeping things simple for the sake of the simple man, and reflecting other beliefs back to them with an added concept grafted into it, in the form of parables and other analogies, seems in keeping with the public aspect of Jesus' teaching.


Complainant: If it was God's message, I would think it would be a model of crystalline clarity.

Witness: Is this one of those "If I was GOD I would have done it this way" arguments?
What 'crystal clarity' is missing that you believe should be present in what Jesus taught?


Complainant: One great merit of the Koran is that it is written so beautifully that no mortal could imitate it..... or so they say.

Witness: What has hearsay to do with your argument exactly?

Complainant: If Jesus had divine friends, one would think his pronouncements would be clear.

Witness: Perhaps it takes a simply activation within the individual in order to trigger that divine spark which otherwise lays dormant? I can see that in the simple teachings of Jesus.

Complainant: One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Witness: To a simple man, perhaps that is all that is required to believe the summer will eventuate.


Complainant: I was led to this question after discussing the contentious - and important - message from Jesus that he would return before some of his listeners had died.

Witness: I have to ask anyone, why they would suppose that this did not happen as Jesus foretold?
Would one expect such stories to also be part of the overall story?
Perhaps the things Jesus taught in relation to the effect those teachings had on individuals, would fill up many story-books?
How would we know if Jesus had returned soon after his departure and set up his Kingdom in secret? It would stand to reason that since he did most things in secret, that this is not a hard think to contemplate as feasible.


Complainant: That modification about people being alive leads one to suppose Jesus is saying his mission will be completely wound up in a few years. Some take it that when Jesus was on a mountain with three of his followers, he fulfilled his prophecy.

Witness: Perhaps his main mission was indeed completed in a few years. Perhaps from there on he has been working quietly with those ones behind the general scenes watching the results of his handiwork and tweaking as necessary? We can say it is or isn't so. but what evidence do we have either way?


Complainant: Clarity would mean Jesus saying: "I am coming back in 2543 years and seventy one days from now." Sadly, we never have such clarity, for then we could pronounce with certainty on dubious predictions.

Witness: So is that the bottom line of your complaint then?
That the royal 'we' have no means of knowing for sure one way or the other?
In relation to the command to love one another, how is that even something important in which to consider?



Complainant: Some might think a prediction about a demi-god coming to Earth with a possibly hostile legion of armed angels of more than passing interest. It has for me the same significance as the effect of the ghost of his father on Hamlet.

Witness: Should we all be like you then? As it is, I have the luxury in present times to google information on the ghost of Hamlet's dad...otherwise your comment would remain ambiguous to me.

Surely those of simpler times can be understood to being less schooled-up on the subject of how Jesus saw GOD in relation to how they saw GOD and the most intelligent way to understand that is in accepting that simply thinking folk are unlikely to understand complex subject with any clarity, even IF they had access to the internet.

Surely an intelligent individual should be able to work out that keeping things simple in the public arena was a good and necessary thing for Jesus to have done.


Complainant: The OP is about the lack of clarity that allows some groups to claim X and others to claim the opposite, while each group thinks itself to be a flock of sheep with extremely good hearing.

Witness: How does it matter? Some sheep have one piece of the puzzle, other sheep have another piece of the puzzle. Leave it to intelligence to observe the sheep in that light and learn to gather the different pieces and from those, have more opportunity to altogether place those pieces into a coherent picture.
The Shepard loves all the sheep, not just the ones in one particular pen.
The Shepard does not expect all the sheep to understand the Shepard, but to simply go where the Shepard herds them.


[yt]acqEWYcz2l4[/yt]


Complainant: May I summarise your observations by interpreting them as meaning: All you need is love?

Witness: I think the love required is one which lays aside judgment ... easier said that actualized...due to our sheepishly learned habits.
Perhaps it is up to intelligent men to lead the sheep to better pastures? But not without Love at the helm...

[JehovahsWitness]

What about loving one another is unclear?

Nothing. Did somebody say this was unclear? We are dealing with ambiguities, problems, difficulties in interpretation.

Nothing? Are you sure? Are you sure "love one another" isn't ambiguous and problematic for the majority of people?

What about in times of war, when the head of State declares another nation "the enemy" and conscripts a Christian to learn to kill or support the killing of their fellow men and women in another country, say Germany or Japan. I'm sure the threads here would run and run on how it's really not so simple to apply that rule and how "love each other" is complicated, impractical, open to interpretation, cannot be taken literally, unclear and even or downright foolish.

I dare say, "Love one another" is only simple in peacetime,; when war is declared by ones own country of residence it probably remains so for songwriters, Jehovahs Witnesses and the occasional Quaker.





JW

[marco]

I hear what you are saying, marco. But then again, the issue that you raise is nothing new or unique...this had been going on throughout Jesus' earthly ministry.

Ecclesiastes 1 makes the point well: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.!"
But I am not sure it is right except in the poetic suggestion that man repeats his mistakes through history and our novelties are a variation on an old theme.

Remember, some of Jesus' teachings were hard for the disciples to keep up with.

I am not talking about the profundity in what Christ said. There is depth, but it is not impenetrable. I am referring to statements that can have a variety of meaning; to phraseology that lends itself to misinterpretation; to a seemingly deliberate choice of words that raises argument; for example, "Before Abraham was, I am."


Would that someone had stepped forward and said: "By which you mean exactly?" The dumbness of the disciples is neither here nor there.

More digging needs to be done here.

One digs in vagueness to no avail. What happens is we populate the earth with multiple branches from the vine that is Christianity. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our poor understanding, but in the master's delivery.

[marco]

Nothing? Are you sure? Are you sure "love one another" isn't ambiguous and problematic for the majority of people?

It was a polite concession on my part, JW. I am aware that love, apart from being a "many splendoured thing" has many meanings. The statement means "be nice to each other!" and every infant understands these words.

I'm sure the threads here would run and run on how it's really not so simple to apply that rule and how "love each other" is complicated, impractical, open to interpretation, cannot be taken literally, unclear and even or downright foolish.

Christ demonstrated that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter. While we are enjoined to love our enemy, we are not told to ignore them. If someone acts against us, it seems right to punish, while still loving. Jesus didn't hold back with the buyers and sellers in the Temple.

[marco]

[Replying to post 15 by William]

I am saying that biblical ambiguity has led to division. You introduce the problem of detecting an entire picture from a single jig-saw piece. I cannot see how this has anything to do with my question. I am of course not arguing that it should be possible to deduce the entire bible message from a single verse.

It is commonly supposed that the bible is inspired, presumably by the Holy Spirit. Why, then, under such spiritual guidance do we argue over passages that might have been phrased in a better way?

[JehovahsWitness]

Christ demonstrated that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter. While we are enjoined to love our enemy, we are not told to ignore them. If someone acts against us, it seems right to punish, while still loving. Jesus didn't hold back with the buyers and sellers in the Temple.

You seem to be moving into "interpretation" of the words (I've no problem with that), and yes, that's my point, "be nice" can be appreciated like music, but when it comes to how to apply the words to practical real life decisions as adults, it becomes complicated for 99% of readers. What about killing our fellow man in times of war? "Love one another" and then drop a bomb on them? Love them and then shoot them? Stab them? Slit there throats? (Ahhh if only war war not so... messy!)

Any attempt to apply those words as if they were meant to influence real world actions is very, VERY complicated, even dare Is say it, incomprehensible for all but a select few!